Research on intergroup contact suggests that contact relates more strongly to affective than cognitive dimensions of prejudice. However, work on these forms of prejudice focuses primarily on positive contact experiences. One goal of this study is to examine whether positive and negative contact experiences differentially predict affective and cognitive dimensions of prejudice. The second goal is to examine intergroup threats as mediators of contact–prejudice relationships. Results demonstrated that negative contact more strongly predicted cognitive dimensions of prejudice such as stereotypes. Both types of contact were similarly predictive of affective dimensions of prejudice. The mediation of the negative contact–prejudice relationship was stronger across all dependent measures than mediation of the positive contact–prejudice relationship. Together these results suggest that either form of contact predicts affective prejudice but negative contact is particularly important in explaining cognitive dimensions of prejudice. Additionally, results suggest an important role for feelings of threat in explaining contact–prejudice relationships.
AbersonC. L. (2010). Applied power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Routledge.
2.
AbersonC. L.GaffneyA. M. (2009). An integrated threat model of implicit and explicit attitudes. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 808–830. doi:10.1002/ejsp.582
3.
AllportG. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
4.
Al RamiahA.HewstoneM. (2013). Intergroup contact as a tool for reducing, resolving, and preventing intergroup conflict: Evidence, limitations, and potential. American Psychologist, 68, 527–542. doi:10.1037/a0032603
5.
BarlowF. K.PaoliniS.PedersenA.HornseyM. J.RadkeH. R. M.HarwoodJ.… SibleyC. G. (2012). The contact caveat: Negative contact predicts increased prejudice more than positive contact predicts reduced prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 1629–1643. doi:10.1177/0146167212457953
6.
BentlerP. M. (2006). EQS 6 structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software, Inc.
7.
BerrenbergJ. L.FinlayK. A.StephanW. G.StephanC. W. (2002). Prejudice toward people with cancer or AIDS: Applying the integrated threat model. Journal of Applied Biobehavioral Research, 7, 75–86. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9861.2002.tb00078.x
8.
BizmanA.YinonY. (2001). Intergroup and interpersonal threats as determinants of prejudice: The moderating role of in-group identification. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 23, 191–196. doi:10.1207/153248301750433669
9.
BrownR.VivianJ.HewstoneM. (1999). Changing attitudes through intergroup contact: The effects of group membership salience. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 741–764. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199908/09)29:5/6
10.
BullockJ. G.GreenD. P.HaS. E. (2010). Yes, but what’s the mechanism? (don’t expect an easy answer). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 550–558. doi:10.1037/a0018933
11.
CorenblumB.StephanW. G. (2001). White fears and native apprehensions: An integrated threat theory approach to intergroup relations. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 33, 251–268. doi:10.1037/h0087147
12.
CottrellC. A.NeubergS. L. (2005). Different emotional reactions to different groups: A sociofunctional threat-based approach to “prejudice.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 770–789. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.5.770
13.
DaviesK.TroppL. R.AronA.PettigrewT. F.WrightS. C. (2011). Cross-group friendships and intergroup attitudes: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15, 332–351. doi:10.1177/1088868311411103
14.
FritzM. S.MacKinnonD. P. (2007). Required sample size to detect the mediated effect. Psychological Science, 18, 233–239. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01882.x
15.
GómezA.TroppL. R.FernándezS. (2011). When extended contact opens the door to future contact: Testing the effects of extended contact on attitudes and intergroup expectancies in majority and minority groups. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14, 161–173. doi:10.1177/1368430210391119
16.
GonzálezK. V.VerkuytenM.WeesieJ.PoppeE. (2008). Prejudice towards Muslims in the Netherlands: Testing integrated threat theory. British Journal of Social Psychology, 47, 667–685. doi:10.1348/014466608X284443
17.
HenryP. J.SearsD. O. (2002). The Symbolic Racism 2000 Scale. Political Psychology, 23, 253–283. doi:10.1111/0162-895X.00281
18.
HewstoneM. (2000). Contact and categorization: Social psychological interventions to change intergroup relations. Stereotypes and prejudice: Essential readings (pp. 394–418). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
19.
HodsonG.HarryH.MitchellA. (2009). Independent benefits of contact and friendship on attitudes toward homosexuals among authoritarians and highly identified heterosexuals. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 509–525. doi:10.1002/ejsp.558
20.
IslamR. M.HewstoneM. (1993). Dimensions of contact as predictors of intergroup anxiety, perceived out-group variability, and out-group attitude: An integrative model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 700–710. doi:10.1177/0022022100031002006
21.
KatzI.HassR. G. (1988). Racial ambivalence and American value conflict: Correlational and priming studies of dual cognitive structures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 893–905. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.55.6.893
22.
LindströmB. R.BohlinG. (2012). Threat-relevance impairs executive functions: Negative impact on working memory and response inhibition. Emotion, 12, 384–393. doi:10.1037/a0027305
23.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (1998–2011). Mplus user’s guide (6th ed). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
24.
NagdaB. A.ZúñigaX. (2003). Fostering meaningful racial engagement through intergroup dialogues. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 6, 111–128. doi:10.1177/1368430203006001015
25.
PaoliniS.HarwoodJ.RubinM. (2010). Negative intergroup contact makes group memberships salient: Explaining why intergroup conflict endures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 1723–1738. doi:10.1177/0146167210388667
26.
PayneB. K. (2005). Conceptualizing control in social cognition: How executive functioning modulates the expression of automatic stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 488–503. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.89.4.488
27.
PettigrewT. F. (2008). Future directions for intergroup contact theory and research. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32, 187–199. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2007.12.002
28.
PettigrewT. F.TroppL. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751–783. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751
29.
PettigrewT. F.TroppL. R. (2008). How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta-analytic tests of three mediators. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 922–934. doi:10.1002/ejsp.504
30.
PettigrewT. F.TroppL. R. (2011). When groups meet: The dynamics of intergroup contact. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
31.
PreacherK. J.HayesA. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.3.879
32.
RenfroC. L.DuranA.StephanW. G.ClasonD. L. (2006). The role of threat in attitudes toward affirmative action and its beneficiaries. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 41–74. doi:10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00003.x
33.
RiekB. M.ManiaE. W.GaertnerS. L. (2006). Intergroup threat and the integrated threat theory: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 336–353. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1004_4
34.
RothbartM. (1996). Category-exemplar dynamics and stereotype change. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20, 305–321. doi:10.1016/0147-1767(96)00021-1
35.
RothbartM.JohnO. P. (1985). Social categorization and behavioral episodes: A cognitive analysis of the effects of intergroup contact. Journal of Social Issues, 41, 81–104. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1985.tb01130.x
36.
StephanC. W.StephanW. G.DemitrakisK. M.YamadaA. M.ClasonD. L. (2000). Women’s attitudes toward men: An integrated threat theory approach. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24, 63–73. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2000.tb01022.x
37.
StephanW. G.BonieckiK. A.YbarraO.BettencourtA.ErvinK. S.JacksonL. A.… RenfroC. L. (2002). The role of threats in racial attitudes of Blacks and Whites. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1242–1254. doi:10.1177/01461672022812009
38.
StephanW. G.Diaz-LovingR.DuranA. (2000). Integrated threat theory and intercultural attitudes: Mexico and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 240–249. doi:10.1177/0022022100031002006
39.
StephanW. G.StephanC. W. (1993). Cognition and affect in stereotyping: Parallel interactive networks. In MackieD. M.HamiltonD. L. (Eds.), Affect, cognition, and stereotyping: Interactive processes in group perception (pp. 111–136). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
40.
StephanW. G.StephanC. W. (2000). An integrated threat theory of prejudice. In OskampS. (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 23–46). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
41.
StephanW. G.YbarraO.BachmanG. (1999). Prejudice toward immigrants. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 2221–2237. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb00107.x
42.
StephanW. G.YbarraO.MartinezC. M.SchwarzwaldJ.Tur-KaspaM. (1998). Prejudice toward immigrants to Spain and Israel: An integrated threat theory analysis. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 559–576. doi:10.1177/0022022198294004
43.
StephanW. G.YbarraO.MorrisonK. R. (2009). Intergroup threat theory. In NelsonT. (Ed.). Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 43–60). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
44.
TauschN.HewstoneM.KenworthyJ.CairnsE.ChristO. (2007). Cross-community contact, perceived status differences, and intergroup attitudes in Northern Ireland: The mediating roles of individual-level versus group-level threats and the moderating role of social identification. Political Psychology, 28, 53–68. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2007.00551.x
45.
TauschN.HewstoneM.KenworthyJ. B.PsaltisC.SchmidK.PopanJ. R.… HughesJ. (2010). Secondary transfer effects of intergroup contact: Alternative accounts and underlying processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 282–302. doi:10.1037/a0018553
46.
TauschN.HewstoneM.RoyR. (2009). The relationships between contact, status and prejudice: An integrated threat theory analysis of Hindu–Muslim relations in India. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 19, 83–94. doi:10.1002/casp.984
47.
TauschN.TamT.HewstoneM.KenworthyJ.CairnsE. (2007). Individual-level and group-level mediators of contact effects in Northern Ireland: The moderating role of social identification. British Journal of Social Psychology, 46, 541–556. doi:10.1348/014466606X155150
48.
TroppL. R.PettigrewT. F. (2005). Differential relationships between intergroup contact and affective and cognitive dimensions of prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1145–1158. doi:10.1177/0146167205274854
49.
VociA.HewstoneM. (2003). Intergroup contact and prejudice toward immigrants in Italy: The mediational role of anxiety and the moderational role of group salience. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 6, 37–52. doi:10.1177/1368430203006001011
50.
WilliamsE. J. (1959). The comparison of regression variables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 21, 396–399. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2983809
51.
WolskoC.ParkB.JuddC. M.BachelorJ. (2003). Intergroup contact: Effects on group evaluations and perceived variability. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 6, 93–110. doi:10.1177/1368430203006001014
